Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Why not support plural form?

See original GitHub issue

In addition to

SuperExpressive().exactly(5).digit

why not support

SuperExpressive().exactly(5).digits

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 3 years ago
Comments:5 (3 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

6reactions

kalmanhcommented, Jul 19, 2020

@francisrstokes - you have a point there, but if one of the main goals of the project is to be as expressive as possible SuperExpressive().exactly(5).digit is pretty lame (and not very natural 😑 ).

5reactions

francisrstokescommented, Jul 18, 2020

Hey @kalmanh,

I have thought about this, and it basically comes down to predictability. Let’s imagine you use the .digits property without .exactly(x). what would you expect the regex to look like?

/\d+/?
/\d+?/?
/\d*/?
/\d*?/?
/\d{1,}/?
/\d{2,}/?
/\d{2,}?/?

Even if you’re able to make a decision about how to handle that ambiguity, you then have to deal with the fact that it needs to generate differently depending on what quantifier is specified. That would complicate the mechanism that deals with quantification, increasing the code size and potential for bugs.

I actually don’t think it’s insurmountable - all of these concerns could be reasonably addressed - but at the moment I personally don’t see the benefits outweighing the costs. I’ll leave the issue open for other people to provide input.

Thanks for the feedback!